You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum. This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.

Bradford was actually amazing considering he was behind one of the statistically worst offensive lines of this current decade, had zero run-game, and his best receiver (Diggs) was banged up every other game. Best QB season performance for the Vikings since Favre 09.

Won't go anywhere with Bradford, don't care about his stats. When the Colts were up big on the Vikings my friend asked "do you think they can come back?"

I said "no, Bradford is their qb"

Lol.

Bradford is not a problem.

He's not the problem but he's not a franchise QB either. In reality, there are very few franchise QBs in the NFL anyway who are capable of carrying their team deep into the playoffs regularly.

But then you have QBs like Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson who aren't elite but can be capable enough at the right time to win a super bowl. Bradford might fit into this category if he gets a running game, which will help the defense tremendously.

Murray ultimately won't be the fix to the Vikes rushing woes, success will be dependent upon the OL._________________

Won't go anywhere with Bradford, don't care about his stats. When the Colts were up big on the Vikings my friend asked "do you think they can come back?"

I said "no, Bradford is their qb"

Lol.

Bradford is not a problem.

He's not the problem but he's not a franchise QB either. In reality, there are very few franchise QBs in the NFL anyway who are capable of carrying their team deep into the playoffs regularly.

But then you have QBs like Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson who aren't elite but can be capable enough at the right time to win a super bowl. Bradford might fit into this category if he gets a running game, which will help the defense tremendously.

Murray ultimately won't be the fix to the Vikes rushing woes, success will be dependent upon the OL.

lol Bradford will never come close to touching Russell Wilson._________________

Just an outsider's opinion, but I don't think the franchise is going anywhere until they get a quality starter at QB. Vikings haven't seemed legitimate since 2009 when Favre was playing well. Bradford is just going to hold the franchise back.

Bradford was fantastic last season and the absolute least of Minnesota's problems.

So you think Bradford is a franchise quarterback?

Never said that. He's a good starter though and good enough to run Minnesota's offense for the next 3 or 4 years if the Vikings FO chooses him to.

If he's not a franchise quarterback the Vikings aren't going anywhere. Unless the Vikings have an all time defensive year like the '85 Bears, '00 Ravens, '02 Buccaneers. They're probably better off searching for the next guy._________________- Five Time Super Bowl Champion San Francisco 49ers -
1981*1984*1988*1989*1994*

As if finding a franchise QB is that easy. Are there even half a dozen franchise QBs in the NFL right now? To win a super bowl these days it seems one must have either a HOF QB/QB playing at an elite level or a defense playing incredibly well paired with an effective QB.

The Vikings can't ditch Bradford. The alternative is unknown and very likely poor at this point. the Vikinfs defense needs to step up to the level of the Broncos a couple of years ago, I don't think thy are terribly far off, but a running game would go a long ways towards preserving the effectiveness of the defense._________________

As if finding a franchise QB is that easy. Are there even half a dozen franchise QBs in the NFL right now? To win a super bowl these days it seems one must have either a HOF QB/QB playing at an elite level or a defense playing incredibly well paired with an effective QB.

The Vikings can't ditch Bradford. The alternative is unknown and very likely poor at this point. the Vikinfs defense needs to step up to the level of the Broncos a couple of years ago, I don't think thy are terribly far off, but a running game would go a long ways towards preserving the effectiveness of the defense.

Well yeah it's not easy to find a quality starter at QB. Just saying, Vikings shouldn't be comfortable with Bradford as their starter.

Hopefully they can continue to build a good defense and get a nice run game going._________________- Five Time Super Bowl Champion San Francisco 49ers -
1981*1984*1988*1989*1994*

Won't go anywhere with Bradford, don't care about his stats. When the Colts were up big on the Vikings my friend asked "do you think they can come back?"

I said "no, Bradford is their qb"

Lol.

Bradford is not a problem.

He's not the problem but he's not a franchise QB either. In reality, there are very few franchise QBs in the NFL anyway who are capable of carrying their team deep into the playoffs regularly.

But then you have QBs like Joe Flacco and Russell Wilson who aren't elite but can be capable enough at the right time to win a super bowl. Bradford might fit into this category if he gets a running game, which will help the defense tremendously.

Murray ultimately won't be the fix to the Vikes rushing woes, success will be dependent upon the OL.

Wilson isn't even close to bradford in level though.

I'd say Bradford is fine, if Minnesota can put a hell of a team around him. In that case, they definitely CAN win a superbowl. It would just have to be a really really good roster.

IF (and only if) that OL can become a GOOD unit as opposed to bottom 3 in the league, Minnesota has a shot. But they still need to get more dynamic on offense._________________

Danand wrote:

Carr is 22-25,no playoff games, I'd take Flacco over him.To me it seems like Flacco is just where he belongs. Behind the Brady, Roethlisberger,Rivers,Rodgers,Wilson and ahead of Carr,Tannehill,Cousins,Palmer,Dalton,Luck

Ppl are just coming in here and throwing dirt on the Vikings for no reason other than their own personal bias.

Bradford this, Bradford that. It's a thread about Murray. It's not our fault you didn't watch Sam play last year, go start a thread and show your ignorance there pls. Thanks._________________2017 - In Zimmer We Trust.

FootballProdiG wrote:

I see Minnesota falling off the map this year just like they did in the second half of the season.

Behind a great line in Oakland he averaged 4 yards per carry in a season where his two backups averaged 5.9 and 5.4 yards per carry. Now, he's running behind a line that is a work in progress at best. I don't see how this works out. Beyond the glaring stats, he didn't look very good running the ball when I watched him either.

Behind a great line in Oakland he averaged 4 yards per carry in a season where his two backups averaged 5.9 and 5.4 yards per carry. Now, he's running behind a line that is a work in progress at best. I don't see how this works out. Beyond the glaring stats, he didn't look very good running the ball when I watched him either.

For what it would have cost to tag Peterson, we signed Reiff, Remmers, and Murray while saving a couple million. You could say we should have negotiated a lower amount with Peterson, but we can only speculate on how low, if any lower, he would have gone. We may have not been able to sign any of these three FA's.

With that said, I understand the bottom line of your post: Murray is not a number 1 back, let alone someone you want replacing a legend. I do agree tht it's not ideal, but Minnesota isn't going to get top tier FAs (Charles, Peterson, even Woodhead and Lacy) without greatly offering more than other teams.

Behind a great line in Oakland he averaged 4 yards per carry in a season where his two backups averaged 5.9 and 5.4 yards per carry. Now, he's running behind a line that is a work in progress at best. I don't see how this works out. Beyond the glaring stats, he didn't look very good running the ball when I watched him either.

For what it would have cost to tag Peterson, we signed Reiff, Remmers, and Murray while saving a couple million. You could say we should have negotiated a lower amount with Peterson, but we can only speculate on how low, if any lower, he would have gone. We may have not been able to sign any of these three FA's.

With that said, I understand the bottom line of your post: Murray is not a number 1 back, let alone someone you want replacing a legend. I do agree tht it's not ideal, but Minnesota isn't going to get top tier FAs (Charles, Peterson, even Woodhead and Lacy) without greatly offering more than other teams.

Paying Murray $5 million isn't that big of a deal. I still think there is sticker shock for some in regards to some of these free agent contracts. Murray does provide good skills as a pass blocker and seems like a good receiver. If the Vikes had more dollars and years commuted, I'd be concerned, but his deal is essentially a one year contract if he can't be a competent starter.

I'd rather have Murray who's going to come in and work hard than someone like Lacy who needs to lose 25 pounds.

It seems MN wants to use shotgun to help Bradford and the OL, Peterson simply doesn't fit. MN made the right decision to move on. Murray probably isn't the answer but he's an upgrade over what MN has last year._________________

Last edited by vikingsrule on Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total